A look at Matthew 16 vs dogma

[ReformedBaptist]

See my profile...


Correct!




You can read the writings from the ECF's. Some were personally taught by at least one of the apostles, and many were taught by someone who was only one generation removed from them. Remember, everything in the Bible is true... BUT, not everything is IN the Bible.

Peace!

My opinion is that you should remove yourself from your southern baptist denomination. You have left and reject the Baptist Faith and Message. To remain is dishonorable at best and pernicous at worst.

Concerning the public teaching (oral) of the apostles and what we have written, do you believe that the Christians who either heard them publically or now can read their writings can understand these things?

I have read the ECFs, though not everything that is out there, but large portions and whole letters. While there is a great deal of consistency between them, there are also vast differences. This is quite unlike the unity that is found in the cannocal Scriptures.

We only have to look to the Apostle John to understand that everything that Jesus did or taught is not written. However, where do you end up when you seek to pry into that which is not Scripture and therefore have no infallible record of either the life or teachings of the Son of God?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

This is part of history - it is what it is. The Catholic Church called the councils that put together the canon of the New Testament. All Christians who accept that canon tacitly accept their authority.



Well, not the one that I proposed as it was derived from scripture by one of the early Church councils.

Peace!

I have studied Church history, both medieval, modern, and ancient histories. The idea that the papacy seeks to promote concerning itself is not supported by these histories. What is rather elementary, even childish, in their understanding is to read "Catholic Church" in an ancient writing of a early Christian and assume "Roman Catholic Church" or the Roman Church. It seems such a basic mistake I am still surprised that people make it.

What is rather arrogant in my view about your statements here is that someone the church, and it sounds like your view is means the Roman Catholic Church, determines the cannon of Scripture...and then you go further, and claim that those who accept the authority of God-breathed Scripture by default announce the authority of the papacy! And you wonder why I think your papist? haha. You claim to be a Baptist, and a Southern Baptist at that, but you are in name only and are only offering lip service.

You should leave your Baptist church and go ahead and become the papist you are.

Your second statement amounts to a declaration of an infallible church council. I know of none. Nor do I have any means whereby I can judge one council right and another wrong apart from judging each council by Scripture. Which, consequently, lands me right back to the supremecy of Holy Scripture over all men, church councils, pope, pastor, elders, presbytery, et.

Do equate a church council with Scripture is to call the edicts of a council the very speaking of God. Inasmuch as an individual or council conforms its doctrine to Holy Scripture, it may be said to be the Word of God. Inasmuch as it departs from Holy Scripture it is not. And the freedom of the Christian is that such determinations should and rightly be left to their private judgment.

To the Christian, they stand or fall on Christ Alone, not on church council or pope.

No church council ever "put together" a canon of Scripture. They merely recognized God-breathed Scripture. There is no such thing as a church determining what is and is not Scripture. God makes this so by authoring Scripture, God-breathed writings through His chosen apostles and prophets, and not other writings. A canon is "created" by default in that some writings are God-breathed while others are not.

The church only recognizes His Voice.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

The thing about the ECF writings is that its not authoritative however it is a snap shot into the thinking and the beliefs of the people at the time we can from them discover what is was that christians were thinking and doing. That is their value. And where they are consistent we have to give serious consideration.

Consistent with each other or consistant with Scripture? That is the point. Very few deny the benefit of early Christian writings and their usefulness. But those who know the Scriptures relagate them to their proper place.

True Christians should be far less concerned from departing in belief or practice from a church father than from Christ Himself and the doctrine of the Apostles.

Nor does any Christian have any guarentee that the understanding of the most eminant church father is infallible. God is not holding us accountable to the writings of Clement. He is holding us accountable, as God speaking to us, by the Scriptures.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

You assume difference rather than commentary. The issue is one of commentary rather than difference. And not just commentary but application as well. That is how it is to be viewed.

Your reply is rather confusing. I work to keep things rather simple. It is agreed that anything that was taught publically by the apostles (oral teaching) and what we have written and handed down to us, is not different. It is the same.

It was stated by the psuedo-baptist that we don't have everything that the apostles taught, and it appears to me that both the papist and those who go in that direction, plunge headlong into that abyss of unknowing.

The true Christians stops at God-breathed Scripture and says "Thus far, and no more." To depart from God-breathed Scripture is neither safe nor wise.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Your reply is rather confusing. I work to keep things rather simple. It is agreed that anything that was taught publically by the apostles (oral teaching) and what we have written and handed down to us, is not different. It is the same.

It was stated by the psuedo-baptist that we don't have everything that the apostles taught, and it appears to me that both the papist and those who go in that direction, plunge headlong into that abyss of unknowing.

The true Christians stops at God-breathed Scripture and says "Thus far, and no more." To depart from God-breathed Scripture is neither safe nor wise.

I was trying to be clearer on the understanding of oral tradition in comparison with the bible. Often times people not in the "know" assume that oral tradition is a "secret" extra additive to the bible. I'm indicating that is not the case. It works much like in the case of Paul commenting on the OT. Or a way of perscieving what was writen by the apostles and the aplication of it. For example. I may write: we as a church group sing and clap joyfully. However, in practice, which I'm writing, I may sing one song and have the congregation clap 3 times then sit down. People at the time of the reading will understand this to mean 1 song and 3 claps. Whereas 500 years from now a more general view is held. The only way the original intent of it is to have that practice reinforced over time. That is how tradition works.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Consistent with each other or consistant with Scripture? That is the point. Very few deny the benefit of early Christian writings and their usefulness. But those who know the Scriptures relagate them to their proper place.

True Christians should be far less concerned from departing in belief or practice from a church father than from Christ Himself and the doctrine of the Apostles.

Nor does any Christian have any guarentee that the understanding of the most eminant church father is infallible. God is not holding us accountable to the writings of Clement. He is holding us accountable, as God speaking to us, by the Scriptures.

Consistent with each other in how to they view scripture. As explained in the above post. You hold either or view when it actual both and.

 

[BillySunday1935]

I have studied Church history, both medieval, modern, and ancient histories. The idea that the papacy seeks to promote concerning itself is not supported by these histories.

Well, I’ve just posted many documents that DO support that idea. Yet, you have provided nothing in contradiction. If you have studied Church history then you should be able to provide us with some historical documents dating back at least as far as those that I have posted that prove your statement.

What is rather elementary, even childish, in their understanding is to read "Catholic Church" in an ancient writing of a early Christian and assume "Roman Catholic Church" or the Roman Church. It seems such a basic mistake I am still surprised that people make it.

Again – see the above…

What is rather arrogant in my view about your statements here is that someone the church, and it sounds like your view is means the Roman Catholic Church, determines the cannon of Scripture…

Well, its historical fact that they did. You can ignore it if you wish, but that would be your problem.

...and then you go further, and claim that those who accept the authority of God-breathed Scripture by default announce the authority of the papacy!

It’s simple logic – nothing more! The RCC had the authority – guided by the Holy Spirit – to create the NT canon. If you were a true student of History, or even had a Western Civ. 101 course under your belt, you would know this. Personally, it sounds to me as though you have an axe to grind.

...And you wonder why I think your papist? haha.

I wonder no such thing.

...You claim to be a Baptist, and a Southern Baptist at that, but you are in name only and are only offering lip service.

Again… more opinion.

You should leave your Baptist church and go ahead and become the papist you are.

And you should mind your own affairs.

Your second statement amounts to a declaration of an infallible church council. I know of none. Nor do I have any means whereby I can judge one council right and another wrong apart from judging each council by Scripture.
Which, consequently, lands me right back to the supremecy of Holy Scripture over all men, church councils, pope, pastor, elders, presbytery, et.

Let’s see - you use scripture to judge the councils that put together the scripture of the NT by which you are judging them. Astronomically circular!

Do equate a church council with Scripture is to call the edicts of a council the very speaking of God. Inasmuch as an individual or council conforms its doctrine to Holy Scripture, it may be said to be the Word of God. Inasmuch as it departs from Holy Scripture it is not.
And the freedom of the Christian is that such determinations should and rightly be left to their private judgment.

Well, all I can say is that people are fallible and they make mistakes. So, whose interpretation of scripture do you follow, hmmm? It is going to be through some denominational lenses that you view scripture you know. So, which shall you chose? I believe that, wherever there is consensus among the ECF’s, there is a guide to what the Early Church taught and worshipped. It is undeniably clear. Personally, I would prefer to use the Early Church as my interpretational lenses as they were close to the time of Christ and his teachings, and knew better than some yahoo “theologians” who came onto the scene in only the last 500 years.

To the Christian, they stand or fall on Christ Alone, not on church council or pope.

What makes you think that our Catholic Christian brothers and sisters ignore Christ? As far as I can tell, they are more Christocentric that many Protestant denominations out there.

No church council ever "put together" a canon of Scripture. They merely recognized God-breathed Scripture. There is no such thing as a church determining what is and is not Scripture.

Right…

God makes this so by authoring Scripture, God-breathed writings through His chosen apostles and prophets, and not other writings. A canon is "created" by default in that some writings are God-breathed while others are not.

Look - there were many writings out there at the time and some were even heretical. Why in the world do you think the councils were called in the first place? It was to create a unified canon of the inspired and authentic writings into one unit that all Churches could use with confidence. Here’s a list of what didn’t make the cut. Again, this is historical fact!

New Testament Apocrypha
Community Rule
The 'Zadokite' Document
Narrative of Joseph of Arimathaea
Epistle of the Apostles
Report of Pilate the Procurator
History of Joseph the Carpenter
Apocryphon of James (Another version)
The Letter of Peter to Philip
Book of John the Evangelist
Ptolemy's Commentary on the Gospel of John Prologue
Avenging of the Saviour
The Apocryphon of John (Long Version)
The Sentances of Sextus
Book of Thomas the Contender
Lost Books of the Bible
The GOSPEL of the BIRTH OF MARY
The PROTEVANGELION (Another version)
The first Gospel of the INFANCY of JESUS CHRIST
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas Composit
Greek (A)
Greek (B)
Infancy Compilation (all)
The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew
THE EPISTLES of JESUS CHRIST and ABGARUS KING of EDESSA (Another version)
The GOSPEL of NICODEMUS (or ACTS of PONTIUS PILATE) (Another Version)
Letters of HEROD and PILATE
The APOSTLES' CREED
THE EPISTLE of PAUL the APOSTLE to the LAODICEANS
The EPISTLES of PAUL the APOSTLE to SENECA (w/SENECA's to PAUL)
The ACTS of PAUL and THECLA
The FIRST EPISTLE of CLEMENT to the CORINTHIANS
The SECOND EPISTLE of CLEMENT to the CORINTHIANS
The GENERAL EPISTLE OF BARNABAS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the EPHESIANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the MAGNESIANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the TRALLIANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the ROMANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the PHILADELPHIANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the SMYRNAEANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to POLYCARP
The EPISTLE of POLYCARP to the PHILIPPIANS
HERMAS
The First Book of HERMAS (or VISIONS)
The Second Book of HERMAS (or COMMANDS)
LETTERS OF HEROD AND PILATE
THE LOST GOSPEL ACCORDING TO PETER
THE GOSPEL of PETER - LAST
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the PHILIPPIANS
The MARTYRDOM of IGNATIUS
The MARTYRDOM of POLYCARP
TERTULLIAN on SPECTICALS
TERTULLIAN on PRAYER
TERTULLIAN on PATIENCE
TERTULLIAN on MARTYRS
The Report of Pilate to Caesar
Gospel of Bartholomew
Gospel of Thomas
Gospel of Phillip
Secret Gospel of Mark
Book of Marcion
Excerpts from the Gospel of Mary
The Letter of Aristeas
The Didache

Peace!

 

[BillySunday1935]

snip...
It was stated by the psuedo-baptist that we don't have everything that the apostles taught, and it appears to me that both the papist and those who go in that direction, plunge headlong into that abyss of unknowing.

What I said was that "Everything in the Bible is true, but... not everything is IN the Bible"

And that is correct according to scripture.

John 20:30
30 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.

-- and --

John 21:25
25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

Peace!

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I was trying to be clearer on the understanding of oral tradition in comparison with the bible. Often times people not in the "know" assume that oral tradition is a "secret" extra additive to the bible. I'm indicating that is not the case. It works much like in the case of Paul commenting on the OT. Or a way of perscieving what was writen by the apostles and the aplication of it. For example. I may write: we as a church group sing and clap joyfully. However, in practice, which I'm writing, I may sing one song and have the congregation clap 3 times then sit down. People at the time of the reading will understand this to mean 1 song and 3 claps. Whereas 500 years from now a more general view is held. The only way the original intent of it is to have that practice reinforced over time. That is how tradition works.

I am not certain where this is taking you. All analogies fall short, but these your trying to use do miss something that is paramount. The NT is God-breathed Scripture.

Oral traditions are not.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Consistent with each other in how to they view scripture. As explained in the above post. You hold either or view when it actual both and.

Well, not exactly. The view I hold is that whatever was taught publically that is not written (we have no way of knowing for sure) is not different than what we have written.

In other words, the Apostle Paul wasn't saying publically something different that what he wrote to the Roman Christians.

No one can travel back in time and listen to Paul preach publically. I can, however, read his letters to the churches. And these are sufficient.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I am not certain where this is taking you. All analogies fall short, but these your trying to use do miss something that is paramount. The NT is God-breathed Scripture.

Oral traditions are not.

So what you are saying is that all the other things Jesus said not recorded in scripture are not inspired?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Well, I’ve just posted many documents that DO support that idea. Yet, you have provided nothing in contradiction. If you have studied Church history then you should be able to provide us with some historical documents dating back at least as far as those that I have posted that prove your statement.



Again – see the above…



Well, its historical fact that they did. You can ignore it if you wish, but that would be your problem.



It’s simple logic – nothing more! The RCC had the authority – guided by the Holy Spirit – to create the NT canon. If you were a true student of History, or even had a Western Civ. 101 course under your belt, you would know this. Personally, it sounds to me as though you have an axe to grind.



I wonder no such thing.



Again… more opinion.



And you should mind your own affairs.



Let’s see - you use scripture to judge the councils that put together the scripture of the NT by which you are judging them. Astronomically circular!



Well, all I can say is that people are fallible and they make mistakes. So, whose interpretation of scripture do you follow, hmmm? It is going to be through some denominational lenses that you view scripture you know. So, which shall you chose? I believe that, wherever there is consensus among the ECF’s, there is a guide to what the Early Church taught and worshipped. It is undeniably clear. Personally, I would prefer to use the Early Church as my interpretational lenses as they were close to the time of Christ and his teachings, and knew better than some yahoo “theologians” who came onto the scene in only the last 500 years.



What makes you think that our Catholic Christian brothers and sisters ignore Christ? As far as I can tell, they are more Christocentric that many Protestant denominations out there.



Right…



Look - there were many writings out there at the time and some were even heretical. Why in the world do you think the councils were called in the first place? It was to create a unified canon of the inspired and authentic writings into one unit that all Churches could use with confidence. Here’s a list of what didn’t make the cut. Again, this is historical fact!

New Testament Apocrypha
Community Rule
The 'Zadokite' Document
Narrative of Joseph of Arimathaea
Epistle of the Apostles
Report of Pilate the Procurator
History of Joseph the Carpenter
Apocryphon of James (Another version)
The Letter of Peter to Philip
Book of John the Evangelist
Ptolemy's Commentary on the Gospel of John Prologue
Avenging of the Saviour
The Apocryphon of John (Long Version)
The Sentances of Sextus
Book of Thomas the Contender
Lost Books of the Bible
The GOSPEL of the BIRTH OF MARY
The PROTEVANGELION (Another version)
The first Gospel of the INFANCY of JESUS CHRIST
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas Composit
Greek (A)
Greek (B)
Infancy Compilation (all)
The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew
THE EPISTLES of JESUS CHRIST and ABGARUS KING of EDESSA (Another version)
The GOSPEL of NICODEMUS (or ACTS of PONTIUS PILATE) (Another Version)
Letters of HEROD and PILATE
The APOSTLES' CREED
THE EPISTLE of PAUL the APOSTLE to the LAODICEANS
The EPISTLES of PAUL the APOSTLE to SENECA (w/SENECA's to PAUL)
The ACTS of PAUL and THECLA
The FIRST EPISTLE of CLEMENT to the CORINTHIANS
The SECOND EPISTLE of CLEMENT to the CORINTHIANS
The GENERAL EPISTLE OF BARNABAS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the EPHESIANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the MAGNESIANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the TRALLIANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the ROMANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the PHILADELPHIANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the SMYRNAEANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to POLYCARP
The EPISTLE of POLYCARP to the PHILIPPIANS
HERMAS
The First Book of HERMAS (or VISIONS)
The Second Book of HERMAS (or COMMANDS)
LETTERS OF HEROD AND PILATE
THE LOST GOSPEL ACCORDING TO PETER
THE GOSPEL of PETER - LAST
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the PHILIPPIANS
The MARTYRDOM of IGNATIUS
The MARTYRDOM of POLYCARP
TERTULLIAN on SPECTICALS
TERTULLIAN on PRAYER
TERTULLIAN on PATIENCE
TERTULLIAN on MARTYRS
The Report of Pilate to Caesar
Gospel of Bartholomew
Gospel of Thomas
Gospel of Phillip
Secret Gospel of Mark
Book of Marcion
Excerpts from the Gospel of Mary
The Letter of Aristeas
The Didache

Peace!

First of all, your not a baptist. And it is dishonest for you to claim to be in your profile. Your a papist. I just wish you would be honest about that.

You have bought the papal lie about history. I am telling you I ahve read the same histories, the same writings, et. Perhaps you just can't imagine someone looking at the same data and not seeing what you see?

The papacy has NEVER been guided by the Holy Spirit. Unless you think murdering bible-believers is the will of God.

Do I have an axe to grind? Yes, actually I do. I am wholly and completely offended at a papal church that murders men, women, and children, that perverts every doctrine of the Christian church, that usurps the Godhead in every respect, and leads this world in spiritual adultery.

I am also appalled that you would be permitted to be a member of a Baptist church that should throw you out on your ear and send you to the papists.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Well, not exactly. The view I hold is that whatever was taught publically that is not written (we have no way of knowing for sure) is not different than what we have written.

In other words, the Apostle Paul wasn't saying publically something different that what he wrote to the Roman Christians.
No one can travel back in time and listen to Paul preach publically. I can, however, read his letters to the churches. And these are sufficient.

No one asserts anything else. What is asserted is that at the time of writing and speach there was a "full understanding" of what was said in the context of the dialogue. Like in my example.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

So what you are saying is that all the other things Jesus said not recorded in scripture are not inspired?

Of course not. What I am saying is that it has pleased God not to make those known. If you seek to pry into those things, I almost guarntee you will end up either an apostate or heretic.

The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law. Deut 29:29

 

[ReformedBaptist]

No one asserts anything else. What is asserted is that at the time of writing and speach there was a "full understanding" of what was said in the context of the dialogue. Like in my example.

I have no way of knowing, and neither do you, what was asserted at the time of the writing or what the Christians understanding was in that day.

What we both can and do know, is what the Apostles taught the people, and that we have enough where it is wholly sufficient for the Christian. We need nothing more. God has given us all that we need in Holy Scripture for our knowledge, edification, comfort, training, et.

Those who go beyond the Scriptures, such as the papacy, orthodox, et do err greatly.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I have no way of knowing, and neither do you, what was asserted at the time of the writing or what the Christians understanding was in that day.

What we both can and do know, is what the Apostles taught the people, and that we have enough where it is wholly sufficient for the Christian. We need nothing more. God has given us all that we need in Holy Scripture for our knowledge, edification, comfort, training, et.

Those who go beyond the Scriptures, such as the papacy, orthodox, et do err greatly.

I'm explaining the nature of how tradition works not in its validity. However, what can we sumise of the founding father's work on the US constitution? We have the federalist papers and the anti-federalist papers which supplied the views of the fathers of the founding documents. We have multitude of commentary by people just post framers about the constitution. Yet because of these things we can say with certainty this is how the constitution was to be understood. In like manner the writings of the ECF work in the same way. It provides a cultural context and view of how christians viewed those same scriptures and the Tradition that neither you nor I have received from the Apostles themselves but the ecf have. So for clarification Tradition is not an additive but a view or an approach to scripture and the things the apostles have said that has consistently been passed down. And can be exampled at all times of history back to the begining. This is what is meant by deposit of faith the totality of Scripture and Apostolic teaching.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Billy,

You need to read through my thread on Sola Scriptura, and most importantly, the dialogue between James White and Mark Shea.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Billy,

You need to read through my thread on Sola Scriptura, and most importantly, the dialogue between James White and Mark Shea.

It would be great if you could post a link to the transcripts or the recorded dialogue.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I'm explaining the nature of how tradition works not in its validity. However, what can we sumise of the founding father's work on the US constitution? We have the federalist papers and the anti-federalist papers which supplied the views of the fathers of the founding documents. We have multitude of commentary by people just post framers about the constitution. Yet because of these things we can say with certainty this is how the constitution was to be understood. In like manner the writings of the ECF work in the same way. It provides a cultural context and view of how christians viewed those same scriptures and the Tradition that neither you nor I have received from the Apostles themselves. So for clarification Tradition is not an additive but a view or an approach to scripture and the things the apostles have said that has consistently been passed down. And can be exampled at all times of history back to the begining. This is what is meant by deposit of faith the totality of Scripture and Apostolic teaching.

Your reply is why human reasoning is so inadequate. God gave His people His word. Then He gave His own His Spirit. We do not have the "spirit of the founders of the USA" in us.

But we who are CHrist's have the mind of Christ. What I think alot of people want is some infallible interpretor for them. Perhaps it fills some need for safety, or perhaps they are just lazy.

When you appear before Jesus to be judged, He is not going to ask you how you responded to the ECFs. He is going to judge you by His Word.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

It would be great if you could post a link to the transcripts or the recorded dialogue.

I did. Look back at the thread.